One extraordinary (but valid) case on why alimony needs to be eliminated. People should not be paid for doing nothing.

I'm not sure it needs to be ELIMINATED. Spouses who stay home to raise kids make valuable sacrifices. Permanent alimony, however, is complete nightmare fuel in its own right. It encourages the payee to simply sit on their ass and collect checks. If they find a new partner they simply move in and enjoy all the benefits of cohabitation without losing their alimony payment.

Alimony needs to be limited. I'd say to 5 years, tops. That will allow the recipient to rehabilitate themselves into the workforce.

Yeah it's not like the average child support payments only cover less than half the cost of actually raising a child (for that income bracket).

If every single parent having to pay child support was just refusing to have a part in their child's life, I might agree with you. But everyone I know who's paying wants their kids, spends as much time with them as allowed, and spends a lot on them anyway. That's crap.

If every single parent having to pay child support was just refusing to have a part in their child's life, I might agree with you. But everyone I know who's paying wants their kids, spends as much time with them as allowed, and spends a lot on them anyway. That's crap.

That's a problem with custody, not a problem with child support itself.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of cases do not go to court, and only a minority of those actually finishes the legal process. Parents coming to terms on their own is not something the courts can do much about. The fact that the public has a misguided perception of legal bias against the father in courts doesn't help. But that's why it's also important to start dispelling myths about the court. Judges are not as biased as people like to think they are, and the legal system has been adopting a legal presumption of equal custody since three decades ago.

I'd honestly love to see a study to see how much of that money actually gets spent on the child and not on the woman herself.

I would too, but seriously. The logical inference from "on average it costs couples $700 a month to raise a child" and "this mother gets paid $300 a month in child support" is not that the woman must be spending (some or all of) it on herself.

That's a problem with custody, not a problem with child support itself.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of cases do not go to court, and only a minority of those actually finishes the legal process. Parents coming to terms on their own is not something the courts can do much about. The fact that the public has a misguided perception of legal bias against the father in courts doesn't help. But that's why it's also important to start dispelling myths about the court. Judges are not as biased as people like to think they are, and the legal system has been adopting a legal presumption of equal custody since three decades ago.

It doesn't matter what people come up with outside of courts.

The fact that, when it reaches the courts, the judges have such leeway to pull this shit is beyond reproach.

No one should ever have to pay $100,000+ in alimony to an ex spouse. Alimony is supposed to assist your transition back to the workforce. Not be a permanent meal ticket.